Juries giving marijuana defendants a pass

It seemed a
straightforward case: A man with a string of convictions and a
reputation as a drug dealer was going on trial in Montana for
distributing a small amount of marijuana found in his home — if only the
court could find jurors willing to send someone to jail for selling a
few marijuana buds.

The problem began during jury selection this
month in Missoula, when a potential juror said she would have a "real
problem" convicting someone for selling such a small amount. But she
would follow the law if she had to, she said.

A woman behind her
was adamant. "I can't do it," she said, prompting Judge Robert L.
Deschamps III to excuse her. Another juror raised a hand, the judge
recalled, "and said, 'I was convicted of marijuana possession a few
years ago, and it ruined my life.' " Excused.

"Then one of the
people in the jury box said, 'Tell me, how much marijuana are we talking
about? ... If it was a pound or a truckload or something like that, OK,
but I'm not going to convict someone of a sale with two or three buds,'
" the judge said. "And at that point, four or five additional jurors
spontaneously raised their hands and said, 'Me, too.' "

By that time, Deschamps knew he had a jury problem.

"I
was thinking, maybe I'll have to call a mistrial," he said. "We've got a
lot of citizens obviously that are not willing to hold people
accountable for sales in small amounts, or at least have some deep
misgivings about it. And I think if I excuse a quarter or a third of a
jury panel just to get people who are willing to convict, is that really
a fair representation of the community? I mean, people are supposed to
be tried by a jury of their peers."

The Missoula court's dilemma
was unusual, yet it reflects a phenomenon that prosecutors say they are
increasingly mindful of as marijuana use wins growing legal and public
tolerance: Some jurors may be reluctant to convict for an offense many
people no longer regard as serious.

"It's not on a level where
it's become a problem. But we'll hear, 'I think marijuana should be
legal, I'm not going to follow the law,' " said Mark Lindquist,
prosecuting attorney in Pierce County, Wash. "We tell them, 'We're not
here to debate the laws. We're here to decide whether or not somebody
broke the law.' "

Twelve states plus the District of Columbia have
decriminalized possession of small quantities of marijuana. Led by
California in 1996, 17 states have laws that allow medical use of
marijuana.

But federal authorities have in the past continued to
pursue prosecutions in those states, prompting increasing calls among
drug-law reform advocates for juries to simply follow their consciences
and refuse to convict — a legal concept, widely used during Prohibition
and in the Jim Crow-era South, known as jury nullification.

"This
is one of the first times in a number of years there's a general
discussion around this powerful but rarely used jury tool," said Allen
St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the
Reform of Marijuana Laws. "But going back 20 years plus, there's been
some tumult in the courts where the issue is cannabis and the person
being prosecuted wants to turn to the jury and say, 'Yes, I am guilty,
and here's why.' "

The phenomenon is difficult to measure, St.
Pierre and several others said, because the term jury nullification is
rarely invoked; defendants with substantial evidence against them are
simply acquitted, or juries deadlock.

"Sometimes, we're not told
what the reason was, whether it was nullification or they just had a
factual question about the case, we just don't know," said Ian Goodhew,
deputy chief of staff for the King County prosecutor's office in
Seattle.

"Some (prospective) jurors will honestly tell us that
they don't think they can follow the law because they think the law's
wrong and should be changed. At that point, we ask the judge to consider
dismissing them," he said. "As attitudes change more and more, that's a
problem we could face in trying cases to a jury. You could have that
issue trying before a judge, too, if a judge has a strong opinion on the
validity and necessity of those kinds of laws."

St. Pierre said
he is convinced that is what happened in the case of Northern California
pot activist Ed Rosenthal, whose conviction on federal charges in 2003
prompted prosecutors to seek a 6½-year sentence. Rosenthal instead was
sentenced by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer to a single day — in
part reflecting the dismay of eight jurors who said after the trial they
would have voted to acquit Rosenthal had they known his pot was
intended for medicinal use.

Last
year in Illinois, which has no medical marijuana law, Vietnam veteran
Loren Swift, who claims he uses marijuana to relieve pain and
post-traumatic stress, was charged in LaSalle County after police found
25 pounds of marijuana and 50 pounds of marijuana plants in his home. He
was acquitted after only two hours of jury deliberations.

"Some of the jurors got up and they started hugging the guy," said Peter Siena, the deputy prosecutor who tried the case.

"It's
becoming an increasing problem. People just don't seem to care about
marijuana cases anymore," said Brian Towne, the LaSalle County
prosecuting attorney.

(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)

The
issue is ripe in Montana, which is home to the headquarters of the Fully
Informed Jury Association, a national group that encourages jurors to
nullify laws they believe are unjust.

Jury nullification never
became an issue in the Missoula drug case — there was never a jury.
While Deschamps was wrestling with what to do during a recess, the
defendant, Touray Cornell, agreed to accept a conviction on a felony
count of distribution of his 1/16 of an ounce of dangerous drugs. He was
sentenced to 20 years, with 19 years suspended to run concurrently with
the sentence on another conviction for conspiring to stage a set-up
robbery at a casino.

The prosecutor, Andrew Paul, declined to
discuss the case, except to say that Cornell's neighbors had been
"complaining about his brazen drug dealing."

"The jury of course
knew none of that stuff," Deschamps said. "What they knew was some guy
here was charged with criminal sale of a very small amount of marijuana.
Were they going to hang him for that?"

The judge, a former
prosecutor, said he himself voted for Montana's medical marijuana
initiative in 2004, which has become highly controversial in part
because its beneficiaries have become so numerous — more than 12,000
citizens hold cards entitling them to use the drug for sometimes
doubtful medicinal purposes.

"My personal view, I think for the
most part we should legalize marijuana and be done with it. Because I
think it's created way more havoc and trouble than it's worth," he said.
"But when you get some guy (like Cornell) that just comes and rubs it
in your face."